The appellants were convicted for the murder of the deceased in the High Court. This decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. A disagreement had arisen between the 1st appellant and the deceased over the way in which the 1st appellant had recklessly driven into the deceased causing him to swerve. It was contended that the deceased had slapped the 3rd appellant as a result of which the appellants in the company of others drove to the hotel of PW.2, threatening to kill the deceased, for assaulting the 3rd appellant.

Later in the day, the deceased was seen driving his car with PW.1 and PW.3 in the market. The appellants forced him to stop and attacked him. There was evi¬dence that the 1st, 2nd and 4th appellants actually inflicted blows on the deceased, and that the 3rd appellant cheered and encouraged the others to kill him.

The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court against the conviction. It was contended on behalf of the 3rd appellant that there was no evidence from which to infer, as the trial Judge did, that the 3rd appellant was predetermined to avenge her assault by collecting the other appellants as reinforcement; that there were material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and their statements to the police concerning the second encounter at which the deceased was mortally wounded and finally that it was wrong for the trial Judge to have held that there was a premeditated common intention to kill when the evidence of the de¬gree of the 3rd appellant's participation was so tenuous.